bugs’n’mud e. coli, turbidity and flow relationships for the motueka river lucy mckergow and rob...
TRANSCRIPT
Bugs’n’mud
E. coli, turbidity and flow relationships for the Motueka
River
Lucy McKergow and Rob Davies-Colley
Outline
• background• research questions• methods• results• conclusions
Background
• E. coli bacteria– indicator for freshwater recreation – source= faecal contamination from warm-
blooded animals– transport = surface runoff, subsurface flows,
direct deposition, re-entrainment of bed sediment
• MfE & MoH (2003) guidelines– <260 cfu/100ml acceptable
• in small streams turbidity can be used as a surrogate for E. coli
Research questions
• can turbidity be used as a surrogate for E. coli in large rivers?
• how many E. coli are exported to Tasman Bay?
Motueka River
• At Woodmans Bend– 2047 km2
catchment– native + exotic
forest 60%, pasture 20%
– mean flow 82 m3/s– median flow 47
m3/s
Dataset
• flood event samples – June 03-June 04– sample interval 10 to 30 minutes –auto
sampler– continuous turbidity - OBS– lab turbidity – NTU– E. coli – Colilert, most probable number/100
mL
• monthly sampling – May 03 – Dec 05
1
10
100
1000
10000
1May03 9Aug03 17Nov03 25Feb04 4Jun04 12Sep04 21Dec04
Date
E.
coli
(M
PN
/100
ml)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Flo
w (
cum
ecs)
event
monthly
flow
Monitoring period
event
monthly
flow
Concentrations
baseflow rising falling
E.
coli
(MP
N/1
00
ml)
100
101
102
103
104
105
• concentrations high during events – particularly on rising limbs of hydrographs
Kolmogorov-Smirnov p=0.000
E. coli vs flow
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000 10000Flow (m3/s)
E.
coli
(MP
N/1
00 m
l)
baseflowrisingfalling
E. coli vs turbidity
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000Lab turbidity (NTU)
E.
coli
(MP
N/1
00 m
l)
baseflowrisingfalling
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
18Sep03 12:00 19Sep03 12:00 20Sep03 12:00 21Sep03 12:00 22Sep03 12:00
Date
E.
coli
(M
PN
/100
ml)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Flo
w (
m3 /s
) a
nd t
urbi
dity
(N
TU
)
E. coli Flow Field turbidity (NTU)
18-22 Sep 03
E. coli
Turbidity
Flow
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
18Jun04 19Jun04 20Jun04 21Jun04 22Jun04 23Jun04 24Jun04 25Jun04 26Jun04
Date
E.
coli
(MP
N/1
00 m
l)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Flo
w (
m3 /s
) an
d tu
rbid
ity (
NT
U)
E. coli Flow Field turbidity (NTU)
18-21 June 2004
Turbidity
Flow
E. coli
Loads
• LOADEST – USGS model– log-linear regression– lnQ, lnQ2, seasonality, decimal time
(centred to eliminate collinearity)
LOADEST
• E = 0.55• r2 = 0.69
• mean Ld = 1.4 x 107
#/day
• max Ld = 9 x 108 #/day
Inst loadobs
Daily loadpred
Conclusions
• bugs and mud are from different sources
• turbidity may not be a consistently useful surrogate for E. coli in large rivers– alternative is to use flow